"Mitigating factors do not change this objective situation," they explained. "To change a discipline of the Church rooted in doctrine and affirmed by the constant Magisterium of the Church, an explicit declaration would be necessary. This cannot be found in the apostolic exhortation. Wherever a reader may have doubts as of how to interpret a certain passage, a sound guiding principle of interpretation is to read those passages in light of the clearly affirmed doctrine of the Church. To seek 'doctrinal novelty,' as some claim to have found in the text, where it is not stated, is to do violence to the text."
Healy acknowledged, at the same time, that "there is going to be a debate of interpreting just what this means."
"One point that would be helpful for Catholic readers is to know that the reason why the Church has this discipline of not allowing civilly remarried Catholics to receive the sacrament is not on the basis of a determination that they're in mortal sin: it's not the subjective culpability, or even their responsibility in the failure of the marriage."
Healy said that "once you see that, then what are presented in the document as mitigating circumstances … aren't mitigating circumstances that open the path to receiving Communion: they're mitigating circumstances that would allow for a more human and more charitable form of accompaniment and mercy."
Instead of judging "a person's subjective state, you realize the human complexity of the situation. But that's of a different order than principles that would allow an exception to the prohibition against receiving the sacrament, because the reason for that prohibition is objective: it's the state or condition of life."
He also reflected on the importance of understanding "where there is a discussion in this exhortation of the need for recognizing that there are [universal, general] norms, but there can be exceptions to the norm, what norms are being talked about here? Are they norms of divine right? Absolute moral norms that regard those acts that are intrinsically evil? Or are they disciplinary norms?"
"We are not dealing with absolute moral norms that refer to intrinsically evil acts and are valid in every situation. The existence of such norms is the main point of the doctrinal encyclical Veritatis splendor. The Pope said that he does not want to make doctrinal changes. We are not dealing with whether, for example, there can be an acceptable exception to adultery, or torture, or acts of pedophilia, which are wrong always, everywhere, and without exception. The Church does not have the authority to change norms of divine right, like the one regarding the admission to Communion of those living in irregular situations."
Fr. López suggested that "the norms referred to in the text are not absolute moral norms or norms that regard the divine right, but are rather disciplinary, such as the admission to certain public offices of people in irregular situations (see no. 299). There is also reference (fn. 336) to the sacramental discipline that regards who is a fitting person to be the godfather or godmother at a baptism."
"It would be be erroneous to reduce the affirmation that 'divorced and civilly remarried couples cannot receive communion' to a disciplinary norm whose application can be suspended if certain circumstances suggest that the norm is not pertinent to a specific couple. In this case, a subjectivistic understanding of conscience will have more weight than what God has revealed about the nature of love and what human experience knows to be the case. One's own conscience will be the ultimate tribunal to discriminate what one can do; but it is a tribunal where God is not allowed to speak, and whatever he says is taken to coerce human freedom. But to expel God from one's conscience is to hand oneself over to the one who is more powerful than oneself, or who speaks with greater clarity. It is to accept slavery in the guise of self-determination."
"To see their impossibility of receiving the Eucharist as a hard way of applying a norm, I think is a confusion of what is going on; they can't receive communion because their state objectively contradicts the nature of the sacraments of marriage and the Eucharist … That's why you can't see this case as a possible exception to a sacramental or moral norm."
The risk in the discussion of norms, Fr. López said, is that "what people will run away with once the dust settles is … an idea of Christianity that says, 'Alright, so let's try to be good. If we can, great. If not, don't worry, we'll be understanding and merciful'."
(Story continues below)
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
At Catholic News Agency, our team is committed to reporting the truth with courage, integrity, and fidelity to our faith. We provide news about the Church and the world, as seen through the teachings of the Catholic Church. When you subscribe to the CNA UPDATE, we'll send you a daily email with links to the news you need and, occasionally, breaking news.
As part of this free service you may receive occasional offers from us at EWTN News and EWTN. We won't rent or sell your information, and you can unsubscribe at any time.
Healy stressed that there is also a danger in "reducing marraige to a mere ideal, which the spouses need to pursue."
"That's not really adequate to the truth of marriage: if you understand it simply as an ideal, that misses what's most fundamental about the sacramental economy … marriage isn't just an ideal, but a sacrament, a vocation that comprehends you, and that makes possible a life together beyond the shortcomings of your will."
Marriage is "not something that you have put into existence," Fr. López stated. "It's a gift given by God and accepted in freedom; it is a vocation that one joyfully and courageously receives and embraces for all of life."
"If you talk about marriage simply as an ideal," he said, "detached from the concrete lives of the spouses, you moralize marriage. You put marriage in the hands of the spouses' intentions, their good wills, and their capacity to sacrifice. But if this is the case -- is it really the only thing the Church has to say about married love, is this moral effort to pursue a very high ideal? Is the Christian Gospel really necessary to come up with this not particularly deep morality? How can there be joy in marriage if it does not participate in Christ's love for the Church? Why would one endure the sacrifices that married life brings with itself? If marriage is just dependent upon the will, intentions, and feelings of the spouses, is there an adequate reason that can adequately justify why marriage is indissoluble?"
Real pastoral accompaniment, Healy concluded, isn't saying, "we acknowledge the ideal, but we recognize that not everyone lives up to it."
"Real pastoral accompaniment does not simply propose an ideal: it is grounded in the mystery of God's grace, which is communicated in the sacraments. A sure signpost along the path of accompaniment and integration is the sacramental gift of an indissoluble bond of marriage -- a sign that God has irrevocably shared his own life and love, and that his faithfulness endures."